1. ' This Constitutional petition has been filed by 15 officers of NDFC (now defunct), which was amalgamated with NBP on 1-11-2001 and on the basis of such amalgamation, voluntarily severance scheme was effected on 1-6-2001 and was sent to the Government for approval vide letter dated 26-10-2001. The Government reduced the benefits mentioned in the scheme against which the now defunct NDFC vide letter dated 27-10-2001 moved the Government and when the Government did not respond, petition was filed by the clerical staff being CP No,2299/2001, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 4-5-2002. In that petition, the names of the present petitioners were mentioned in the annexure and this court ordered that relief cannot be granted on the basis of annexure and directed that a separate petition should be filed by the present petitioners, therefore, present petition was filed. However, present petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 8-3-2001 on the basis that it was ousted under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the jurisdiction of this case lay with the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. ' The 12 petitioners filed review against the above order of this Court and the review was accepted by order of this Court dated 25-11-2008 and petition was restored to its previous position. Learned counsel had initially relied on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCM R 1185, in paragraph 16 of which the Honourable apex Court had held that where Tribunal or the apex Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigates but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No,4 Rubina Shaheen, who has not filed review against earlier judgment of this court and had approached Government of Pakistan after dismissal of petition and also dismissal of her appeal. The Federal Government has extended benefit extended to her the benefit extended to the clerical staff by this judgment of this Court, vide Finance Divisions letter No,F.No,1(3)Bkg-III/2008 dated 3rd March, 2008 and therefore, he submitted that the case of the petitioner, who had filed review after earlier judgment dismissing petition, is on better footing than Rubina Shaheen. He therefore, requested that respondents may be directed to provide same benefits under the scheme which has been provided to the clerical staff vide judgment of this Court and so also to Rubina Shaheen. The only objection made by the DAG is that the review was not filed within time. He, however stated that since the office before his appointment had not noted this discrepancy and had not sought any remedy against the review order, therefore, it has become past and closed transaction and cannot be looked at this stage of the proceedings.
4. ' Mr. Masood Anwar Ausaf learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 only, states that the Government of Pakistan and respondent No,2 have to decide and pay dues, if this court so orders.
5. ' We have examined the case in the light of the above arguments and judgments which had been passed on 8-3-2004. Even in para 8 of the above judgment this Court had kept the view expressed by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Hameed Akhter Niazi quoted above in mind. On this point, relevant paragraph is reproduced for the sake of convenience. However, in view of the pronouncement in CP No,2299/2001, it would be open to the respondent No,3 to consider granting similar benefits, in the interest of equity and fairness, which were granted to other employees in similar circumstances.
6. ' We are also of the opinion that this case is fully covered by the observation of the Honourable apex Court in paragraph 16 of the Hameed Akhter Niazi case (supra) and therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioners are also entitled to the same benefits which were provided to other personnel under V.S. Scheme of NDFC and therefore, this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to provide the petitioner in respect of V.S. Scheme the same benefits which have been provided to the clerical staff and Rubina Shaheen. Let this exercise be carried out preferably within a period of four weeks.